Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Sherman Logan

The tsar was a king essentially

Have all kings been tyrants then?

Historically that term was reserved for especially unjust kings not monarchs in general

Autocratic rulers.....kings......tsars...etc who ruled for self at an excessive expense of his subjects

That is a tyrant...and Nicholas was not


9 posted on 12/31/2012 4:25:07 PM PST by wardaddy (wanna know how my kin felt during Reconstruction in Mississippi, you fixin to find out firsthand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: wardaddy

I agree that Nicholas had no desire to be a tyrant, in fact he sincerely desired good for his people.

The problem is that he wasn’t competent enough to surf the waves of modernity crashing down on Russia. In the process he played a very large personal role in creating the situation that allowed the Reds to come to power.

One of the odder parallels in history is that between Louis XVI and Nicholas II. Both were kind, decent, honorable men who wanted the best for their people.

Both presided over the collapse of their monarchies, and got themselves and their families killed in the process. Neither of them deserved their fate, though lots of their ancestors certainly did.


21 posted on 12/31/2012 5:31:46 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson